Just did first oil change with microgreen filter

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Messages
136
Location
Texas
Just my .02 is that this filter is very well built compared to others. About 1/4" bigger (longer) than the factory filter. Heavy duty. Nice big seal. It cost me $11 shipped on Amazon. I'll update over time.
 
Originally Posted By: Bud_One
Any pics of it installed on your vehicle ?
I'm sorry I don't have any this time around. I had friends over and we were waiting on me to finish to hook up to the boat for a river trip.
 
Originally Posted By: PolarisX
I just took mine off and have it bagged for dissection soon.
What were you running it on and how many miles did you do? Did you send anything off for a sample?
 
Originally Posted By: Fsharp
Are you doing the 30k OCI they advertise?
lol... No. I know someone here did and that's great but I'm using QSUD which is $20 a jug so at $4 a quart I'll stick with doing frequent changes.

The dealership told me to do it every 5k miles instead of the factory 7.5k because of the lighter 0w20. I'll probably stick to the 5k initially just so I can see how well everything is working. If things are going well then I'll put another one on and keep rocking. I was really impressed with how solid it felt compared to others and the pickup didn't seem to mind it at all along with the new synthetic. $11 on amazon it's a steal. Will be very curious what the 5k drain will look like.
 
Originally Posted By: FlyingTexan
Originally Posted By: Fsharp
Are you doing the 30k OCI they advertise?
lol... No. I know someone here did and that's great but I'm using QSUD which is $20 a jug so at $4 a quart I'll stick with doing frequent changes.
Then what is the point of using that filter versus a premium synthetic or for that matter a WIX or Napa Gold?
 
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: FlyingTexan
Originally Posted By: Fsharp
Are you doing the 30k OCI they advertise?
lol... No. I know someone here did and that's great but I'm using QSUD which is $20 a jug so at $4 a quart I'll stick with doing frequent changes.
Then what is the point of using that filter versus a premium synthetic or for that matter a WIX or Napa Gold?
The filters never stated they go 30,000OOCI they state to change every 10k. Secondly you're asking why purchase one superior product to an inferior one. The microgreen is built heavier and filters down to 2 micron through the bypass vs the 24+ micron of what you recommended. Not that I'm going to complain about a couple bucks but it's also cheaper than the ones you listed, $11 to my doorstep with no time wasted running around to pick it up. Changing the filters allows 30k OCI because of their level of filtration it's not like it only works at 30k OCI.
 
Originally Posted By: FlyingTexan
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: FlyingTexan
Originally Posted By: Fsharp
Are you doing the 30k OCI they advertise?
lol... No. I know someone here did and that's great but I'm using QSUD which is $20 a jug so at $4 a quart I'll stick with doing frequent changes.
Then what is the point of using that filter versus a premium synthetic or for that matter a WIX or Napa Gold?
The filters never stated they go 30,000OOCI they state to change every 10k. Secondly you're asking why purchase one superior product to an inferior one. The microgreen is built heavier and filters down to 2 micron through the bypass vs the 24+ micron of what you recommended. Not that I'm going to complain about a couple bucks but it's also cheaper than the ones you listed, $11 to my doorstep with no time wasted running around to pick it up. Changing the filters allows 30k OCI because of their level of filtration it's not like it only works at 30k OCI.


But where is the evidence that the oil won't be completely spent at 30k? How do I know if I use QSUD (which I will assume MicroGreen considers is a "quality synthetic") will still have reasonable TBN left at 30k?
 
Originally Posted By: FlyingTexan
The microgreen is built heavier and filters down to 2 micron through the bypass vs the 24+ micron of what you recommended. Not that I'm going to complain about a couple bucks but it's also cheaper than the ones you listed, $11 to my doorstep with no time wasted running around to pick it up. Changing the filters allows 30k OCI because of their level of filtration it's not like it only works at 30k OCI.


No, both filters filter "down to two microns in size" just the same, as will any filter.

In fact, the screen on my window also meets that claim.
 
I would use the Microgreen the same as any filter, just to get the bypass efficiency. I would be interested in seeing more cut open, to see if they corrected the closed ADBV I found on my MG101-1. I measured the can at about .020" which is thicker than most any. The Frams are about .013", M1 about .017". Toyota about .017". So they put a lot of steel in them.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: FlyingTexan
The microgreen is built heavier and filters down to 2 micron through the bypass vs the 24+ micron of what you recommended. Not that I'm going to complain about a couple bucks but it's also cheaper than the ones you listed, $11 to my doorstep with no time wasted running around to pick it up. Changing the filters allows 30k OCI because of their level of filtration it's not like it only works at 30k OCI.


No, both filters filter "down to two microns in size" just the same, as will any filter.

In fact, the screen on my window also meets that claim.


Nothing about your statement is correct. The screen on your windows is not capable of filtering a particle 2 micron in size from the air that passes through it. Fram's website doesn't agree with your either.
 
Originally Posted By: FlyingTexan
Nothing about your statement is correct. The screen on your windows is not capable of filtering a particle 2 micron in size from the air that passes through it. Fram's website doesn't agree with your either.


Everything I said is exactly correct and is exactly in line with the claim microGreen makes. Yes my window screen is quite capable of trapping 2 micron particles. Let's say you pass air over the screen with a known number of 2 micron particles. Some will definitely become embedded in the media and not be collected at the other end. People need to carefully read claims such as microGreen's rather than reading what they think it says.
 
Originally Posted By: FlyingTexan
The microgreen is built heavier and filters down to 2 micron through the bypass vs the 24+ micron of what you recommended.


Where you coming up with 24+ microns?

As said, any micron size rating stated is useless without a corresponding efficiency % or beta ratio. And any efficiency % stated us useless without a corresponding micron size.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: FlyingTexan
The microgreen is built heavier and filters down to 2 micron through the bypass vs the 24+ micron of what you recommended.


Where you coming up with 24+ microns?

As said, any micron size rating stated is useless without a corresponding efficiency % or beta ratio. And any efficiency % stated us useless without a corresponding micron size.


Per MicroGreen

"The full flow filter is 99%@20 microns. The microdisk is rated 99%@5 micron. The 2 micron rating of the microdisk is captured through oil analysis"
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: FlyingTexan
Nothing about your statement is correct. The screen on your windows is not capable of filtering a particle 2 micron in size from the air that passes through it. Fram's website doesn't agree with your either.


Everything I said is exactly correct and is exactly in line with the claim microGreen makes. Yes my window screen is quite capable of trapping 2 micron particles. Let's say you pass air over the screen with a known number of 2 micron particles. Some will definitely become embedded in the media and not be collected at the other end. People need to carefully read claims such as microGreen's rather than reading what they think it says.
Can you please point to something that shows your window screen can FILTER 2 micron particles? Anywhere? It's not the same just because you say it is and my statement wasn't false because I made it simple and not a two page physics paper in legalese. In other words; give me a break.
 
How about efficiency when the pore size is 2 microns? I don't put more than a nickels worth of substance to the multi pass standard test differences, too short of a test with too much test dirt per time interval. A window screen doesn't collect many or any two micron particles, depending on the material of the screen, the density of the particles, and the velocity of the particles. A window screen is likely zero % efficient at catching 2 micron particles. The Microgreen disk is not like a window screen.
 
Originally Posted By: FlyingTexan
Per MicroGreen

"The full flow filter is 99%@20 microns. The microdisk is rated 99%@5 micron. The 2 micron rating of the microdisk is captured through oil analysis


Where did you obtain those specifications? I've looked on the microGreen website and didn't see it. Was it in personal correspondence or on a package?

Several individuals from this site have asked microGreen for efficiency numbers, you are the first to have posted them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top